At a time when the default mode of the workplace is one of cooperation and consensus, being a hard-edged leader is riskier than it used to be, according to executives and people who study leadership.

Last week's sudden ouster of Jill Abramson as executive editor of the New York TimesNYT0.15%—where she had a reputation as a direct, tough manager—has stoked conversations about how much a modern leader must soften his or her style to be effective.

It takes sharp elbows to climb the corporate ladder in the first place and, once in the job, leaders must make unpopular decisions, from killing underperforming initiatives to firing employees.

A couple of decades ago, ruthless bosses such as former Sunbeam Corp. Chairman Albert Dunlap, known as "Chainsaw Al," ran companies without sugar-coating their approach. Today such tactics must be used with caution, says Robert Sutton, a Stanford University professor and author of "The No A—hole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn't."

Bosses also must be aware that their roles are increasingly public, with social media and constant electronic communications exposing matters that once stayed behind closed doors, says Sir Martin Sorrell, CEO of London-based advertising and marketing company WPPWPPGY0.66% PLC.

"In times gone by, you might send a message internally that didn't get outside," says Mr. Sorrell. "Now, everything you write, everything that you say, you should think about it being on the front page of The Wall Street Journal."

After AOL Inc. CEO Tim Armstrong fired a subordinate on a conference call with the company's Patch unit last August, an audio recording was quickly posted online, sparking an outcry over the firing. Mr. Armstrong later issued an apology for his handling of the dismissal, while noting the "difficult situations" that arise when turning around a company.

A separate incident this year, in which Mr. Armstrong cited the cost associated with "distressed babies" as a factor behind changes in AOL's 401(k) plan, provoked a controversy, public apology and reversal of the changes.

An AOL spokesman declined to comment or make Mr. Armstrong available for comment.

Paradoxically, workers claim to value kindness in their bosses, but also prefer leaders who challenge them.

A September survey from workforce-management company Kronos Inc. found that 40% of respondents listed "compassionate" as one of the most important attributes of a good manager.

When asked to choose between a high-achieving but demanding boss and a nice but ineffective manager, three-quarters opted for the high achiever.

Some leaders, like former General Electric Co.GE-0.08% chief Jack Welch, cultivated a reputation for toughness. Mr. Welch earned the nickname "Neutron Jack" in the early 1980s for shifting some operations overseas and dismissing thousands of workers during his tenure atop the company.

But Mr. Welch balanced that fierceness with fairness, fielding questions from workers at all levels in town-hall meetings and swiftly promoting top performers regardless of age, says Sydney Finkelstein, a management professor at Dartmouth College's Tuck School of Business.

Mr. Welch wasn't available to comment, his assistant said.

At the New York Times, the specific reasons for Ms. Abramson's dismissal remain unclear. In a statement, publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. cited "arbitrary decision-making, a failure to consult and bring colleagues with her, inadequate communication and the public mistreatment of colleagues."

Ms. Abramson couldn't be reached for comment.

Until five or six years ago, "there was more of an authoritarian streak in management," says Daniel Hamburger, who oversees about 14,000 employees as chief executive of DeVry Education Group Inc.DV-1.52% "In today's world, that doesn't cut it. There's too much transparency. There's too much need for genuineness, authenticity, respect."

Still, it helps to know when to break out the brass knuckles. About a year ago, Mr. Hamburger moved to right an IT system overhaul that had cost the company more than $100 million. He called for weekly status updates, setting the meetings at 8 a.m. "to make it even that much more uncomfortable," he says.

The message: Fix the project, and sleep in again. After about three months of meetings, the initiative was back on track.

Stanford's Prof. Sutton describes two types of "jerks" in business: those who demean and de-motivate colleagues and those who put their own needs ahead of their organization's.

When bosses simply have to get things done, yelling at subordinates or glaring at them can be OK, depending on the company culture, and is among the "array of techniques that you use as a manager," Prof. Sutton says.

Genuine jerks have been mostly culled from the ranks of corporations in recent years, in part because it is harder to get away with truly bad behavior, he says, adding, "the a—holes among us are getting more skilled, and the ones we are left with are being more subtle about it."

Some companies take formal stands against jerks. A slideshow presentation on corporate culture posted online by Netflix Inc.NFLX2.47% Chief Executive Reed Hastings declares that the company doesn't need "brilliant jerks." Though tolerated at some companies, he writes, Netflix believes their "cost to effective teamwork is too high."

Theodore Dysart, a vice chairman at executive-search firm Heidrick & Struggles International Inc., said companies are growing hesitant to hire executives known for berating colleagues or moody behavior, even if their business results are solid.

"Boards are more diligent today in terms of doing references and understanding fully what someone's like to work with, not just what they're like in the interview room," he said.

For women leaders, a hard-edged style carries additional risk.

"Women can and should be tough and demanding bosses, but they still have to overlay it with a degree of niceness," says Victoria Brescoll, an assistant professor of organizational behavior at the Yale School of Management. Her research shows that angry women in the workplace are perceived more negatively than are angry men.

Carly Fiorina, who served as chief executive of Hewlett-Packard Co.HPQ-0.33% for six years, presiding over a controversial merger with Compaq Computer Corp., says female leaders face more criticism and caricaturing than their male counterparts.

"Everything about me was under incredible scrutiny, from the shoes I was wearing to my perceived style, and it made my job much harder," she says. What is perceived as "appropriately demanding" by a male leader is often interpreted as "abrasive in a woman," she says.

I think the paradox the ideal manager must embrace is easily explained by being a boss that meets people's three innate needs that in turn fosters their intrinsic motivation.

Innate needs, comes from human
psychology researchers Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan. In their classic
article for Psychological Inquiry
they reveal people to fundamentally have three innate needs: autonomy, the freedom of self-regulated
action; competence, growing personal
effectiveness in a rewarding pursuit; and relatedness,
a sense of belonging with security in one’s interrelationships. People whose
innate needs are fulfilled become intrinsically motivated and therefore fully
engage in their work. This intrinsic motivation, in turn, unleashes a person’s
fullest potential.

Managing to meet people's need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness requires both a soft touch and hard nosed practical application.

As a retired senior manager I always felt that an atmosphere of respect for my subordinates was the highest priority. No need for the hard nosed approach. We were a team and everyone pitched in for the common goals.

Sure, there was the occasional need for employee counseling...but it didn't involve dragging them down to the dungeon or resorting to threats.

As long as people and businesses are around, you'll never stop having A--hole bosses.

The arrogant ones who refuse to listen to his/her subordinates about matters. HINT: Just because you have a MBA does NOT mean you know Everything!

"Her research shows that angry women in the workplace are perceived more negatively than are angry men." It depends on the person. I've had good female supervisors and BAD female supervisors, gladly most were in the former category.

It really depends on the person. If a boss is that superficial and lacks confidence or just doesn't know what s/he is doing, the subordinates lives will be in H#LL!

Micromanaging things is another area that managers need NOT do! Let workers work!

The worse thing is that the managers actually realize that both you and him/her DON'T get along because you don't see things "their way". You might as well as leave as that A--hole will make life miserable for you!

Few human beings will ever thrive while working for leaders Sutton describes as being "jerks," even though many of these kinds of managers drive performance through fear & intimidation.

Wise organizations now realize that leading/managing people in fundamentally unsupportive ways -- even if it gets results in the short-term -- is unsustainable & leads to low engagement, high turnover & competitively lower profitability.

Where we're headed -- and what's required in order to reverse the crisis level of disengagement that now exists across the globe -- is a clear movement away from jerky bosses -- and toward those who lead with both head & heart. What's needed are leaders who possess clear competency & who truly know their businesses. But the differentiation is an orientation toward valuing & caring for people -- & demonstrating that in authentic ways. At the end of the day, how our leaders make us feel, has everything to do with how much of ourselves we're willing to bring to our work.

Managers/leaders need to focus their organizations on both strategy/planning and the execution of the plans. Managers/leaders who fail to execute lead failing organizations. But you don't have to be "hard nosed", and uncaring about your people. As Bob Sutton says, you don't have to be a jerk in the process of getting things done.

Today, manager/leaders need to focus on their styles and the cultures that they create on their teams while achieving actual results.

"At the New York Times, the specific reasons for Ms. Abramson's dismissal remain unclear. In a statement, publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. cited 'arbitrary decision-making, a failure to consult and bring colleagues with her, inadequate communication and the public mistreatment of colleagues.'"

I seriously doubt the age of "mean bosses" is over. They will always be among us, and the never-ending fixation short-term results means that they will be tolerated if not supported, at least until results turn south.

Nonetheless, the research that my colleagues and I have done cleary demonstrates that trustworthy, compassionate leaders generate the best long-term results, financial and otherwise.

Most people quit their jobs because of dissatisfaction (putting it nicely) with their employer's personalities, leadership style and business direction……. far less so than wages. But, that is the nature in the world of employment and will always be there as long as you choose to work for someone else.

When the WSJ wrote they are changing their commenting format I had no idea this is what it would be. Exactly WHY did they change it? And I note that 26 people are watching? Who the NSA? Obama? Who is watching? Do they mean reading the article?

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit www.djreprints.com.